What’s in the word ‘terror’? Plenty
Re Get beyond the word, Editorial Nov. 2
Your editorial on the terrorism debate was one of the most thoughtful I’ve read. Terrorism is such an overloaded, overwrought word and of course these days it’s typically associated with the Muslim world — unfairly and unjustly.
Any crime of violence is an act of terror, whether it’s a shootout at the Eaton Centre, the gunning down of three Mounties in New Brunswick or the events in Ottawa and Quebec two weeks ago. These were all acts of violence, some committed by mentally disturbed people.
Why are violent crimes associated with a political or religious agenda so often called terrorism, while crimes by nation states are not? The United States is often plausibly seen as the biggest perpetrator of terror in the world, from Vietnam to Iraq — the list is endless and the sheer scale of the violence vastly dwarfs the deranged actions of one or two psychopaths.
Terrorism has become a meaningless word, thanks to its overuse and misuse by politicians in pursuit of their own narrow political interests. Prime Minister Stephen Harper recently said there is no need for an inquiry into the deaths of aboriginal women because they are nothing more than violent crimes. He should heed his own words and not elevate the events of last month into a holy war on terrorism, further eroding our already fragile civil liberties in the process.
These were criminal acts by troubled people. But then admitting that truth wouldn’t do much to help him tighten the web of surveillance maintained by Canada’s spy agencies, or drum up public support for military adventurism in the Middle East.
We should be able to see acts of violence for what they are, without invoking the spectre of terrorism. Fear-mongering is counterproductive, not to mention usually based on racism. Thankfully it seems that most Canadians just don’t buy into it. Andrew van Velzen, Toronto The attack on Parliament Hill calls for a reasonable and measured response, but Harper’s panicked proposal to grant CSIS sweeping new powers is nothing short of hysteria.
It seems surreal that in Canada there could be any debate about the rule of law that says we are innocent until proven guilty, that police must disclose their sources to the judge, and that it is illegal to target people based on their ethnicity and religion. Allowing CSIS to intern people without charge, for crimes that they have not committed, on the basis of their race and religion, and then to say that the “evidence” they (CSIS) are presenting in court has to be taken at face value for reasons of security has more place in police states such as the former East Germany than in any democracy.
If we relinquish our right to a fair trial and are forced to live in fear of our own police, then haven’t our “enemies” already won? Surely a more proportionate response would be to place an armed guard at the front door of Parliament, thereby safeguarding both our leaders and our hard won freedoms. Mike Ward, Duncan, B.C.
Re Canada launches first strike on Islamic State, Nov. 3
There’s been debate over the use of the word “terrorist.” After reading this, my immediate thought was: now we’re all terrorists! There should be no doubts regarding my interpretation. George Dunbar, Toronto
Hooray, Canada’s aging CF18’s have bombed their first targets — an aging dump truck and an old bulldozer. Canada would be better off giving the money it cost to mount the operation to the poor, instead of pretending to be a world power. Bed Evans, Miami, FL
I don’t want to make light of the events on Parliament Hill but let’s first fix how Parliament works, the respect for it by the PMO and the Conservatives before we worry about fixing security. Fixing how Parliament works and the respect for it will go a long way to fixing security by not creating disenfranchised Canadians. Until then I am not sure it is worth spending money on security for an institution that the governing party can just ignore. Might as well just close it down. David Bell, Etobicoke
Re The perils of crying wolf, Opinion Nov. 2
The substance of both your lead editorial and the opinion piece by professors Michel Fortmann and Pierre Martin is summed up in the editorial’s concluding paragraph: As long as our leaders insist on reducing these complex issues in a binary debate over a slippery word, we cannot have the conversation we need nor choose the country we’ll become.
I would make only one small adjustment to this — we have become. This is still the best country in the world in which to live, but it is already not the country I came to. Ron Gibbens, Richmond Hill
Thanks for your very thoughtful and beautifully written editorial, and the essay by Fortmann and Martin. Both attest to the need to use language carefully, and think through important matters carefully. The pen can be mightier than the sword if used by people of knowledge and goodwill, a concept that has not occurred to our current government, which consistently shows the extreme poverty of its language and analysis. Martha Gould, North Bay
Prime Minister Harper’s Middle East rhetoric and policy sees the Americanization of Canada in its new role as “world policeman” on sovereign nations. Canada, a soft target of laidback citizens, now invites retaliation from its collateral damage on the innocent. But does it matter? Where big oil and the military-industrial complex is concerned, the first fatality is truth and transparency an illusion. Joe Schwarz, Penticton, B.C.
Our prime minister has a noted preference for treating crimes as crimes, not sociological phenomena. This is true even in the case of murdered and missing aboriginal women.
Given that, one would assume that Mr. Harper would welcome Opposition Leader Thomas Mulcair’s decision to regard the recent shooting by a single actor in Ottawa as a crime. When it serves his long-standing domestic and international agenda, though, Mr. Harper rushes to link this crime to larger trends, calling it a “terrorist, jihadist” act.
It is easy to stoke fear and pander to people’s worst instincts. It takes political courage to resist that temptation in favour of sober consideration of the evidence. Mr. Mulcair is to be commended for the tone and tenor of his response to this attack. Anthony Cantor, Toronto